YET MORE TESTIMONY by R. F. C.

Publishing Committee · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jan 15, 1861

YET MORE TESTIMONY.

By R. F. C.

THE Sabbath was appointed at the creation of the world, and sanctified, or set apart for holy purposes, "for man," for all men, and therefore for Christians; since there was never any repeal of the original institution. To this we add, that if the moral law be the law of Christians, then is the Sabbath as explicitly enjoined upon them as upon the Jews. But that the moral law is our law, as well as the law of the Jews, a few passages of Scripture will prove as well as many. Our Lord declares that he "came not to destroy the law and [or] the prophets, but to fulfill." . . . Ceremonial law could only be fulfilled in him by realizing its types; and moral law by upholding its authority. That the observance of the Sabbath is a part of the moral law, is clear from its being found in the decalogue, the doctrine of which our Lord sums up in the moral duties of loving God and our neighbor; and for this reason the injunctions of the prophets, on the subject of the Sabbath, are to be regarded as a part of their moral teaching.

Another explicit proof that the law of ten commandments, and consequently the law of the Sabbath, is obligatory upon Christians, is found in the answer of the apostle to the objection to the doctrine of justification by faith: "Do we then make void the law through faith" [Rom. iii, 31]? which is equivalent to asking, Does Christianity teach that the law is no longer obligatory on Christians, because it teaches that no man can be justified by it? To this he answers, in the most solemn form of expression, "God forbid; yea, we establish the law." Now, the sense in which the apostle uses the term, "the law," in this argument, is indubitably marked in Rom. vii, 7: "I had not known sin but by the law; for I had not known lust except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet;" which being a plain reference to the tenth command of the decalogue, as plainly shows that the decalogue is "the law" of which he speaks. This, then, is the law which is established by the gospel; and this can mean nothing else but the establishment and confirmation of its authority, as the rule of all inward and outward holiness. Whoever, therefore, denies the obligation of the Sabbath on Christians, denies the obligation of the whole decalogue.

The above testimony is good, and the arguments are invulnerable. As a perfect contrast, read the following which immediately follows in the same book:

"Now, though there is not on record any divine command issued to the apostles, to change the Sabbath from the day on which it was held by the Jews, to the first day of the week; yet, when we see that this was done in the apostolic age [How do we see it?] and that St. Paul speaks of the Jewish Sabbaths as not being obligatory upon Christians, while he yet contends that the whole moral law is obligatory upon them; the fair inference is, that this change of the day was made by divine direction."

From all that is true in the premises as stated, any sane man, not drunken with the wine of which all nations have drunk, would have come to a conclusion exactly the reverse of this; namely, This change of the day was not made by divine direction.

Our author again draws this conclusion: "That as a Sabbath is obligatory upon us, we set under apostolic authority for observing it on the first day of the week, and thus commemorate at once the creation and redemption of the world."

Where do we find "apostolic authority" outside of the Bible? Our author has acknowledged that "there is not on record any divine command" for this. He had proved from Bible testimony that the Sabbath of the decalogue was binding on Christians. Now he begins to talk about "a Sabbath" being binding on them. Now if we can "commemorate at once the creation and the redemption of the world," what are the chief objections against commemorating them on the day specified in the commandment?

Our writer then takes the ground that all that the commandment enjoins is a day of rest "after six days of labor," still he claims that it is not "left to every individual to determine which day should be his Sabbath." Says he, "It was ordained for worship, for public worship; and it is therefore necessary that the Sabbath should be uniformly observed by a whole community at the same time. The divine Legislator of the Jews interposed for this end, by special direction, as to his people."

How did the commandment, which our writer says expresses no more than that "a seventh day, or one day in seven," should be observed, enjoin upon the Jews a particular day? If a definite day was enjoined upon the Jews by the fourth commandment, and that commandment is binding on us, as claimed and proved by this writer, how does the same commandment require us to keep another day? And if, for the purpose of public worship the divine Legislator gave a "special direction" to the Jews to produce uniformity, what reason exists why Christians should not be as highly favored, since public worship is still enjoined? Are Christians left to guess at the day, and still obliged to be uniform?